Bail can only be canceled based on cogent and overwhelming evidence of violation of bail conditions; mere allegations are insufficient for cancellation.

JUDGMENT.

1. This is an application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No.1 by the Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated 5.7.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.1727 of 2011.

2. Shri Archit Jayakar, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that while granting bail to the Respondent No.1, the Honourable Supreme Court had imposed a condition that the Respondent No.1 shall file an affidavit before the Magistrate to the effect that he shall not operate the accounts mentioned in the letter dated April 29, 2011. He submits that in compliance with the order dated 05.07.2011, the Respondent No.1 has filed an undertaking before the Magistrate that he shall not operate the accounts mentioned in the said letter.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contends that in breach of the undertaking given to the Honourable Supreme Court, by FAX dated 21.07.2011, which was sent while the Respondent was lodged in the jail, he made a written request to transfer sum of 250,000 Euro to the account of ‘Delux Shine Ltd.’. He submits that the letter dated 29.04.2011 refers to the accounts of the Applicant with Credit Suisse Bank, and in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Respondent No.1 was prevented from operating the said accounts. He submits that in view of Anti Money Laundering proceedings pending against the Respondent, the Credit Suisse Bank sent copy of the transfer request to Suisse Prosecutor for his consent. The Suisse Prosecutor denied the said request to transfer the funds.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that even in the past, i.e. prior to the bail order, the Respondent No.1 had instructed Credit Suisse Bank to transfer the money to his lawyers account as well as other accounts. Learned Counsel for the Applicant therefore contends that the Respondent No.1 had flouted and tried to overreach the bail order dated 05.07.2021 by issuing instructions to transfer sum of 250,000 Euro from the account referred to in letter dated 29.04.2011 to the account of M/s. Delux Shine Ltd. He therefore contends that the bail order is liable to be canceled for breach of undertaking and flouting the order of the Court.

5. Shri Ranjit Sangle, for the Respondent No.1 submits that the Respondent No.1 has not violated any condition of the bail order. He submits that the FAX dated 21.07.2011 in respect of alleged transfer of 250,000 Euro was neither signed, nor sent by Respondent No.1. He submits that the Respondent No.1 had not made any attempts to withdraw any money from the bank accounts listed in the letter dated 29.4.2011. He further submits that the letter does not mention the account number from which the funds were to be transferred and that the same was not addressed to any bank or branch. He further submits that the Respondent No.1 has no connection with Delux Shine Limited which is based in Hongkong. He submits that the Investigating Agency has not investigated whether the letter which was sent from FAX No.08322732973 was sent by the Respondent No.1. He submits that the said letter is forged and fabricated, probably by the complainant to get the bail order canceled. He submits that there is inordinate delay in seeking cancellation of bail.

6. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

7. The Applicant herein filed FIR dated 18.09.2009, with Bund Garden Police Station, Pune, pursuant to which crime has been registered against the Respondent No.1 for offences under Section 403, 408, 418, 420, 464, 467, 471, 477A r/w. 34 of IPC. The Respondent No.1 had filed Criminal Appeal No.1272 o